By Francis Moran
Well, we dodged the Mayan doomsday, the solar flares that were going to scramble all electromagnetic systems on the planet and the first Times Square ball-dropping without Dick Clark in what seems like a century or two. (Although there was that terribly unfortunate incident where Anderson Cooper, who used to be a serious newsman, had to fend off bizarre sexual advances from his NYE cohost Kathy Griffin, all on live television with millions of American families watching. I don’t know about you but I would have welcomed the end of the world if it meant we could have avoided that catastrophe.)
So, now what? With my tongue only slightly in my cheek, here are the top five things I surely wish marketers would adopt as the industry’s set of resolutions for 2013.
Read More
By Leo Valiquette
Though we took our usual holiday break in December, we still covered a lot of ground on the blog during the month. Scotland’s startup scene, the unintended consequences of Canada’s Scientific Research and Experimental Development tax credit program, and practical pointers for handing off a content marketing program were among the many topics we covered.
In case you missed any of it, here is a handy recap of our posts, as ranked by the enthusiasm of our readers:
Dec. 5: It’s that time again to put life and work in perspective, by Leo Valiquette
Dec. 12: Don’t spit your PR effort into the wind, by Leo Valiquette
Dec. 6: SR&ED and the law of unintended consequences, by Francis Moran
Dec. 20: Is this my very last blog post?, by Francis Moran
Dec. 3: Lessons from Project Glass: Why embracing technology is not optional, by Megan Totka
Dec. 17: Commercializing research in Scotland, by Maurice Smith
Dec. 4: Top 10 questions every strategic communicator should ask, by Caroline Kealey
Dec. 10: Apple versus Samsung: Samsung’s ‘out’ to escape infringement, by David French
Dec. 11: A timely post about succession planning in content marketing, by Alexandra Reid
Dec. 13: Content is the sun around which all else revolves, by Francis Moran
Dec. 19: Businesses must think like publishers, says C.C. Chapman, by Alexandra Reid
Dec. 18: Data mining, DNA or otherwise, no substitute for real customer dialogue, by Leo Valiquette
By Leo Valiquette
I trust everyone has had a happy holiday season, even — dare I say it — a merry Christmas. It’s now back to work with depleted bank accounts, expanded waistlines and perhaps a few stories to share from another mad shopping season.
We all do it in some fashion – hunt for the bargains that begin popping up ere the break of dawn on Black Friday south of the border. Midnight Madness and the Pre-Boxing Day Blowout now rival the traditional Boxing Day bonanza, while post-holiday sales continue to creep further and further into January as retailers attempt to keep the tills ringing.
When confronted by packed parking lots and long lineups, it is often easy to focus on the price of the prize in hand and forget that the root of any successful customer experience begins with service. Granted, working retail is no cake walk during the holidays and many customers can be faulted for a lack of common courtesy or holiday cheer. But as is the case with the sale of any product or service, it is the responsibility of the vendor or retailer to give the customer what they want and, if circumstances warrant, take the time to learn about their needs and respond to them.
Read More
By Leo Valiquette
Marketing, as we have repeatedly emphasized on this blog, begins with a fundamental exercise to identify a high-value pain or need that you have the potential to address, and then building the right product to meet that need.
It is by necessity a process of dialogue with that target audience to determine what features, functionalities and price points will make your solution a must have.
So I read with great interest last week’s article in the Globe and Mail titled Why your DNA is a gold mine for marketers.
Read More
By David French
This post goes right to the very heart of a patent and what a patent can and cannot do in the marketplace. And it has a twist, if you are prepared to bear with the analysis to the end.
In my prior post on the subject, I referred to an important hearing held on Dec. 6 this year before Trial Judge Lucy H. Koh. During the hearing, Samsung tried to limit the scope of the consequences of the $1-billion jury decision that arose out of the trial held in August. Among the numerous matters discussed, Apple asked that the jury’s award be increased by an extra one third of a billion dollars as “punitive damages.” The judge can also reduce the amount of the damages awarded if the jury has been unreasonable. Other issues were discussed, but the judge reserved her decision.
Read More
By Francis Moran
